I'm going to write a book "The Iraq War For Dummies"

[Martlet]

Originally posted by GScholz

[patrone]

Nicaragua VS USA 15-0

International court of law:

Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State;

Decides that the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State;

Decides that the United States of America, by directing or authorizing over Rights of Nicaraguan territory, and by the acts imputable to the United States referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to violate the sovereignty of another State;

Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;

Decides that, by the acts referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of America and the Republic of Nicaragua signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;

Decides that the United States of America, by failing to make known the existence and location of the mines laid by it, referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof, has acted in breach of its obligations under customary international law in this respect;

Decides that the United States of America, by the attacks on Nicaraguan territory referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, and by declaring a general embargo on trade with Nicaragua on 1 May 1985, has acted in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;

Decides that the United States of America is under a duty immediately to cease and to refrain from all such acts as may constitute breaches of the foregoing legal obligations;

Decides that the United States of America is under an obligation to make reparation to the Republic of Nicaragua for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of obligations under customary international law enumerated above;

Decides that the United States of America is under an obligation to make reparation to the Republic of Nicaragua for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;

Decides that the form and amount of such reparation, failing agreement between the Parties, will be settled by the Court, and reserves for this purpose the subsequent procedure in the case;

In order to establish whether its jurisdiction were limited by the effect of the reservation in question, the Court has to ascertain whether any third States, parties to the four multilateral treaties invoked by Nicaragua, and not parties to the proceedings, would be "affected" by the Judgment. Of these treaties, the Court considers it sufficient to examine the position under the United Nations Charter and the Charter of the Organization of American States.

[Martlet]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[patrone]

japp, jag tror det räcker.....nu håller han nog käften ett tag

[bustr]

Originally posted by GScholz
Yes.

"The United Nations Charter is the constitution of the United Nations. It was signed at San Francisco on June 26, 1945 by the 50 original member countries. It entered into force on October 24, 1945, after being ratified by the five founding members—the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and a majority of the other signatories.

As a treaty, all signatories are bound by international law to obey the provisions of the Charter. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations. It was ratified by the United States on August 8, 1945, making that nation the first to join the new international organization."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Charter

GScholz,

So has all of this back and forth been you avoiding saying to Martlet point blank that by the US signing the UN charter the Constitution of the United States is subservient to the UN charter? And such the United States cannot do anything in the world without UN authorization? And so because of this you are 1million% correct that the United States is wrong in all way shapes and forms for Liberating the people of Iraq(Oh! I'm sorry invading Saddam Hussen's country illegally)?

You got boaring about 12 posts ago by playing this game with Martlet. Indirect answers and intillectual evasive manuvering is not a mark of distinction. And goading people for kicks is small minded even for Aces High. I can go down to the local San Francisco chapter of PETA for this. And Martlet knows what you are infering also in the last dozen or so snarks. You guys got a problem with taking your shot and accepting the consiquences? Your exchanges ain't gonna make the New York Times Best Seller list any time soon.

[Sandman]

INcredible!

[Martlet]

The US has broken no treaties, though, in going to war against Iraq.

[hawker238]

I think Martlet is a robot.


Tragically, a robot can never love.

[patrone]

Originally posted by Martlet
The US has broken no treaties, though, in going to war against Iraq.

Hi again Martlet.

Yes, I am affraid it has "USA has broken it´s obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State"

The right to Selfdefence? Can only be claimed if Regular armed forces actully crossed your border.

You are sure you want to continue?

One thing is: No one has no made a complaint to the international court of Law yet. But you can be sure, it will be there. Maybe not within the next years, as the only one who can actully bring USA there is the State of Iraq.

Another one who could do it, is Saddam himself. As he was the "legal" president when this action accured. Thats why they keep him out of reach from Television, papers, etc, etc
Thats why they have to keep his trail cencured for the rest of the world.

[Martlet]

The right to Selfdefence? Can only be claimed if Regular armed forces actully crossed your border.

Says who?  You?  By those standards, the entire war on terror is illegal.

You are sure you want to continue?

continue?  Heck, I'm waiting for you to even start.  Repeating yourself over and over isn't an argument.  Let's see the facts.

One thing is: No one has no made a complaint to the international court of Law yet. But you can be sure, it will be there.

Oh, I get it.  It's the old Amerihater "Just you wait and see" argument.  Well, aren't you whining a little prematurely then?

Thats why they have to keep his trail cencured for the rest of the world.

Yeah.   Saddam.  Charged with crimes against humanity by his own people.  I'm not surprised he's your hero.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by hawker238
I think Martlet is a robot.


Tragically, a robot can never love.

Funny.  I was thinking you closely resemble a marionette.  I see the strings.

[hawker238]

Originally posted by Martlet
Funny.  I was thinking you closely resemble a marionette.  I see the strings.

Haha, relax, I'm not here to get in a pissing contest.  Geez, some people are so tense.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by hawker238
Haha, relax, I'm not here to get in a pissing contest.  Geez, some people are so tense.

Ahhh, just here to flap your gums.  Then why get so upset when someone flaps back?

[patrone]

Originally posted by Martlet
Says who?  You?  By those standards, the entire war on terror is illegal.

continue?  Heck, I'm waiting for you to even start.  Repeating yourself over and over isn't an argument.  Let's see the facts.

Oh, I get it.  It's the old Amerihater "Just you wait and see" argument.  Well, aren't you whining a little prematurely then?

Yeah.   Saddam.  Charged with crimes against humanity by his own people.  I'm not surprised he's your hero.

Well, the war on terror is supported by UN, was that a suprise?

And the only one that is not showing any actully facts and repeating himself is you, Martlet. Atleast I have something on my "feet" while making the whine. And don´t you worry, I am not gonna resort into anything "slugish" to get this tread locked, so spare the wind.

Yes, charged with crimes against humanity. Can you give me the slightest hint, why his trail needs to be cencored and all journalists banned from it?

And no: I am not a fan of Saddam Hussain, but his acts should be brought up in the light, for everyone to see and he needs to be given a fair trail. Proof has to be put up, witness speak. You guys owe this to all of his victims families.
After the trail, noone can deny his inorcense or his action, just like no one could deny the horrible acts of the Nazi Goverment, after the Nurnberg trials.

To make a "summerian process" and to take his life, will not bring anything good.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by NUKE
in other words, you can't explain.

By that same logic all your "facts" are unsubstantated bull****.

You said UN inspectors left Iraq voluntairily and I say you are full of chit. You come back and still can't explain, yet say you have explained it many times. Point to one time you have explained it.

If you can't, like I suspect,  then just shut up forget about it.

"16 Dec 1998 The Special Commission withdraws its staff from Iraq."


http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm



God I don't know why you enjoy proving to this board how ignorant you are, but way to go on a job well done.